Bobbette has been mad as **** all year. He ran away with a sore ass after the rednecks beat the **** out of Cuntstein and her gun grabbers and he didn't get the ending he wanted to The Legend of Skittles Martin. He's healed a bit and now he's back to suck Barry's cock some more.

His heart was visible, and the dismal sack that maketh excrement of what is eaten.

Join Date

Mar 2006

Posts

7,345

Posted On:10/02/2013 3:12pm

2

Originally Posted by OwlMatt

It bothers me that every discussion about the government shoutdown I can find on the internet turns into a discussion of the merits of Obamacare, as this one seems to be doing. Whether Obamacare is a good or bad idea has nothing to do with this.

The only relevant question here is: is it okay for a minority to hold the entire federal government's finances hostage in order to get their way on an issue that they failed to win legitimately on the floor or in the courts? And the obvious answer is: no it fucking isn't.

No, that's just what happens to be relevant to you. Obamacare is plenty relevant to me and this is not unrelated.

It bothers you because of your personal perspective, and your personal perspective happens to be that of a liberal *****.

************, I take shits that go on to do bigger and better things than you.

lol. Lacking validation much?

Originally Posted by Devil

Bobbette has been mad as **** all year. He ran away with a sore ass after the rednecks beat the **** out of Cuntstein and her gun grabbers and he didn't get the ending he wanted to The Legend of Skittles Martin. He's healed a bit and now he's back to suck Barry's cock some more.

This is a very hopeful time, actually.

You sound so jaded, and resentful. I think you want a cosign on everyone hating everyone equally, because otherwise, you'd be facing a grim fact...you're a grumpy old man.

First of all, this is not "one side sticking up for its views on the budget in a budget debate". This is a part of one side trying to to write its views on one particular issue into law

Obviously a big enough part of one side in order to cause a shut down. So lets not act like this is two congressmen its quite a few.
It is a budget issue they are asking to defund a line on the budget that they think is important this same **** has happened with the other 17 shut downs of the government. Issues included defense spending, over spending, abortion, ect...

Originally Posted by OwlMatt

They "stuck up for their views" about the ACA when it went through Congress according to the established legislative process; this is something else entirely.

They have also moved to strike down this law 40+ times, this is their right as representatives of their districts.

Originally Posted by OwlMatt

Second, yes, I would have a problem with Democrats doing the same thing. When governor Walker pushed his anti-union bill through the legislature here in Wisconsin, Democrats tried to stop it by up and leaving so that the legislature couldn't have quorum. It's the same idea: if the legislative process doesn't go the way you want it to, try and force your will on the majority by going outside the legislative process. It's bullshit. It's a declaration that the legislative process is only valid when it gives one particular group what they want.

What happened the next election cycle to those democrats? That tells you if its acceptable or not. Not you idealism.
Same thing with this if the people that they actually represent have a problem with this than they will go away. If not who are you to judge.

Originally Posted by Keslet

Well, I sure as hell would...if they can pass legislation, pass it, if they can challenge it in the courts, challenge it

The laws where passed in a privous congress one that had a large shift in representation as a result of it. As part of hte peoples will. The courts job isn't to deal with if a law is popular or good or not. Its if its legal or not. The ACA is a mixed bag when it comes to being the will of the people.

Originally Posted by Keslet

...this is something different...if the anti-war group managed to block military funding until they had unconditional withdrawal of US forces from Middle East they would be treated like terrorists...

If an anti-war group had enough representatives to shut down the government they would have a loud enough voice to help set the narrative of what they are going to be called. You can use this same explanation for any number of other issues. For the people by the people. IF enough people care about something guess what happens.

Originally Posted by Keslet

Why this isn't outraging more people is the mystery to me.

Its simply not that outrageous. There will be blow back. Either the people that are pulling this **** will garner support at home and get to keep their job or they won't and they will be out. If they all get kicked out guess what nobody in the near future is going to do this ****. If they all stay in, well you will see more of it.

Obviously a big enough part of one side in order to cause a shut down. So lets not act like this is two congressmen its quite a few.
It is a budget issue they are asking to defund a line on the budget that they think is important this same **** has happened with the other 17 shut downs of the government. Issues included defense spending, over spending, abortion, ect...

They have also moved to strike down this law 40+ times, this is their right as representatives of their districts.

What happened the next election cycle to those democrats? That tells you if its acceptable or not. Not you idealism.
Same thing with this if the people that they actually represent have a problem with this than they will go away. If not who are you to judge.

The laws where passed in a privous congress one that had a large shift in representation as a result of it. As part of hte peoples will. The courts job isn't to deal with if a law is popular or good or not. Its if its legal or not. The ACA is a mixed bag when it comes to being the will of the people.

If an anti-war group had enough representatives to shut down the government they would have a loud enough voice to help set the narrative of what they are going to be called. You can use this same explanation for any number of other issues. For the people by the people. IF enough people care about something guess what happens.

Its simply not that outrageous. There will be blow back. Either the people that are pulling this **** will garner support at home and get to keep their job or they won't and they will be out. If they all get kicked out guess what nobody in the near future is going to do this ****. If they all stay in, well you will see more of it.

How about sick people being able to get insurance? They do kinda need it, after all.

Keeping children on their parents' plan til age 26...not good?

Forcing providers to clearly lay out benefits in an easily comparable format? Is that not a good thing for consumers?

Limiting unreasonable yearly caps?

I'm failing to see the evil. Can anyone fill me in?

Its not that the program doesn't do any good its the cost that seems to be the issue, and the fairness. Should American tax payers have to provide health care for those who cannot provide for themselves? Is it sustainable? Is it even fair? Is it well legislated?
Everyone loves the benefits side of nearly every program. We all want to have our cake, but do we all want to pay the price for it? Especially if its a program that benfits us directly. Its when the program helps other people and not yourself you see people pissing and moaning.
IE in this case people who get their insurance through work. They went out did what it took to get the job that provides benefits, they may have even turned down greater pay to get those benefits. Now we turn around and are asking them to foot the bill for people who made different choices, choices that didn't lead them to insurance. But no now those people get to have insurance at the expense of those who worked for it.

Hey I for one love the ACA I am going to be insured for a ridiculously low amount of money. It benefits me greatly.

No one wins in this shutdown situation, although some lose more than others.

Maybe losing will open eyes at to what the real problem is.

We as citizens elect the people who do all this stuff. We sit on our asses and let it happen, are for the most part apparently too fucking lazy, busy, misinformed, to make decent decisions at the ballot box..IF, and big IF there are any decent choices to make.

The system can only work if we hold elected officials accountable. Is that hard to do ? Yeah, it is, given how the system has evolved for a multitude of reasons, but it's still something WE have to do something about.

Part of the problem is that "Obama Care" is a shining example of everyone hoping that the "guvment" will just take care of things and come up with a system of health care that works.